Comments for kīli kīlaya

Comment on Authors, plagiarists, or tradents? by Cody Bahir

Cody Bahir — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 09:40:11 +0000

This is a wonderful piece and something I have honestly been waiting to see for quite some time. I am a PhD student whose dissertation work focuses on Shingon Buddhism. However, both my MA and BA are in Jewish Studies.

It has always struck me that there seems to be such a lack of bonafide terminology (or even methodology) for dealing with various forms of authorship in Buddhist Studies as compared to Jewish Studies. Because of this, I have always been forced to rely on scholarship on Jewish texts, which though sometimes raises an eyebrow, is a necessity.

Not only does Biblical Criticism help fill in the gap, but the Rabbinic Literature which you mentioned, particularly, being that Rabbinic Literature is the “Oral Torah” and vacillates between prescriptive and descriptive voice, sometimes within a single paragraph.

Thank you for this, I hope to see further work and interdisciplinary dialogue in the near future as this piece is just a tiny tip of the iceberg.

Comment on Padmasambhava in early Tibetan myth and ritual, Part 4: so who was Śāntigarbha? by Dan H

Dan H — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 01:21:51 +0000

Thanks for this series of posts, Rob, which I have been following with great interest, as you can imagine. Your recent tome just arrived at UCSB and I am now making my way through it.

With regard to the above, I especially appreciate your overview of Bka’ brgyad precisely because so little has been written on it. In digging around Nyang ral’s collection, I got the distinct sense that it was a rather haphazard array of related texts, but I question how fixed this set of deities was for Nyang ral. For example, it seems that the root tantras (rtsa ba’i rgyud) are the foundation of these collections: no tantra, then no deity cycle linked to Indic pedigree, but the Gangtok edition of Nyang ral’s Bka’ brgyad contains 11 root tantras and the Mtshams brag contains 13. Some of these are foundations for or compressions of the entire collection, such as the King of Root Tantras (Rtsa ba’i rgyud kyi rgyal po) and the Root Tantra of the Sugatas (Bde bar gshegs pa rtsa ba’i rgyud) whereas others call upon assemblies of deities – including pacifistic ones (Zhi ba dus pa rtsa ba’i rgyud) that are not regularly noted as definitive of Bka’ brgyad, yet nevertheless appear to have been an integral part of the collection for Nyang ral.

Nevertheless, this familiar set of 8 fierce deities remains intact within his collections – each deity is indeed represented by a root tantra dedicated to it, so my question arising from all this is: prior to Nyang ral, where do we find references to the renowned set of 8 deities listed above? Are there Indic precedents for such a set? Or is this a distinctly Tibetan synthesis and re/creation? Given the collections of pacifistic and fierce deities, perhaps there is some precedent within Guhyagarbha?

Comment on Padmasambhava in early Tibetan myth and ritual: Part 1, Introduction. by Rob Mayer

Rob Mayer — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 23:43:10 +0000

Richard, Good luck with your seminar. It all seems very simple to me: within the intellectual space of public discourse and especially within a university, one should simply rely on evidence and reasoning. And maybe not only universities: I once heard that even Tibetan khenpos will emphasise that the realisations of the retreat centre have no place in the shedra.
In practice, I tend to encounter two equal species of folly among students of Tibetan texts: those who uncritically accept whatever a religious tradition says, and those who uncritically reject whatever a religious tradition says. Yet the truth about anything can only properly be reached through the long, hard labour of rigorous research and critical examination, not through any kind of short-cut fuelled by preconception.
Unlike the 1960′s and 70′s, those who uncritically reject whatever the tradition says are more plentiful these days, both because of a fearful wish to avoid looking like mere devotees, yet also because of the intellectual trend of deconstruction that has prevailed in Religious Studies these last three decades. But that does not make them any less infantile than their opposites: I all too often encounter people who genuinely feel they are being smart merely by contradicting or saying the opposite of some Buddhist tradition or another (usually the one they secretly belong to). It takes some effort to explain to them that in taking any kind of posture based on attitude rather than evidence-based reasoning, they are being just as dumb as those from whom they wish so fearfully to distance themselves.

Comment on Padmasambhava in early Tibetan myth and ritual: Part 1, Introduction. by Richard K. Payne

Richard K. Payne — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 16:29:12 +0000

Dear Rob, I’m going to be leading a seminar on theory and method in the study of Buddhism, and wondered if you might be able to recommend works relevant to distinction between analytic participant observation and uncritical/unreflective commitment. That is, where would you recommend I look for the “more complex understandings” that go beyond the old and dysfunctional opposition of insider (personally committed) versus outsider (objective uninvolved observer). There is a discourse in the community where I work that favors the idea of “committed scholarship,” but that often seems to me to be scholarship in the service of theology, rather than a more nuanced epistemology. Any suggestions for material appropriate for graduate students would be appreciated. many thanks, Richard

Comment on Did Vairocana have lice? by Rob Mayer

Rob Mayer — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:34:26 +0000

Dorji, I don't think you are correct if you are suggesting nyungs dkar is not attested elsewhere than this page of the dBa' bzhed: on the contrary, whether rightly or wrongly, it is in real life attested very widely. Maybe that's why Dan Martin in his Tibetan Vocabulary seems to simply list it as a variant for yungs kar: YUNGS DKAR = nyungs dkar. white mustard. JD 216. SS 525.3. Varieties: dkar, dmar, nag. white mustard. Clifford, list. KP1 151.6. KP3 298.5. KP4 475.3. Skt. sarṣapa, a sort of mustard. Metaphoric usage in Jinpa, Mind Training 337. I am away on a field trip at the moment, working with some excellent Bon lamas on Bon sources (we are doing a comparative study of Bon and Buddhist Phur pa traditions), so I mainly have only Bon sources to hand right now, but here are some attestations of nyungs dkar used interchangeably (whether legitimately or otherwise) with nyungs kar: These from the Ka ba nag po, the famous Bon po gter ma of Khu tsha zla 'od, upon which we are currently working. The following Bon Kanjur and Kathmandu collations are by myself, the Bon Tenjur collation is by J-L Achard: Chapter 23, Tenjur edition, page 105 l5: nyungs dkar. The Kathmandu edition (folio 32v) also gives nyungs dkar. Chapter 23 again: Tenjur edition, page 108.4 gives nyungs dkar, as does the Kathmandu edition (folio 33rl4) I happen to have this folio open before me as I type. Chapter 35, page 117 of the Kanjur edition, gives nyungs dkar nyungs nag, ditto in Kathmandu and Tenjur versions (the page in the Kanjur edition is also open before me, and I assure you, it reads nyungs dkar). Chapter 36: page 119 line 4: nyungs dkar nyungs nag; (ditto, the page is open before me) also Chapter 36: page 120, line 7 Again, ditto in Kathmandu and Tenjur versions, both times. Yet note that nyungs kar is also attested elsewhere in this Ka ba nag po text in some editions, at the same places. At a rough guess, in this particular text, nyungs dkar and nyungs kar probably occur an equal amount. Then, in J-L Achard's catalogue of bDe chen gling pa's gter ma, Bonpo Hidden Treasures, Brill 2004, I found on page page 60 the following: dBal phur ’bar ba nag po’i ’phrin las me ri ’khyil pa rin chen gter mdzod kyi rgyud las/ Nyungs dkar drag po thun gyi bzlog pa gnam lcags thog mda’. Then, J V Bellezza in his Spirit-Mediums, Sacred Mountains And Related Bon Textual Traditions In Upper Tibet: Calling Down The Gods, Brill 2005, page 455, has the following transcription from a Bon text, which he describes as "a Bon thun rite based on hurling mustard seeds to destroy enemies, called bSad las rin chen ’phreng ba’i smad las bzhugs so (New Collection of Bon bka’ rten, Ge khod sgrub skor, vol. 122 (smad-cha), nos. 439–453), nos. 450, ln. 4 to 451, ln. 5. No authorship is given in the text: nyungs dkar rnams ni khro bo’i thun / nyungs nag rnams ni khro mo’i thun/ Then we find nyungs dkar listed on page 855 of the late great Prof. Henry Osmaston's 'Technical Zanskari Vocabularies of Agriculture and Pastoralism', made within help of Punchok Dawa and Tashi Rabgyas, to mean mustard. Now I am neither arguing that nyungs dkar is classically correct, nor the opposite: I am merely pointing out that in practice it does occur very often indeed to mean the mustard seeds used in such rituals. As for shig shig: Dan Martin and ourselves tentatively agree on a meaning of 'swarming' - see comments above, or see the entry in Dan's Tibetan Vocabulary; of course we might all three be wrong, but this interpretation of shig shig at least has the advantage of making excellent sense in the context. All best wishes, Rob

Comment on Did Vairocana have lice? by DW von Bhutan

DW von Bhutan — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:11:15 +0000

Cathy may be right. Indeed I have not always kept track of the details of the visualisations and rituals. The use of mustard seeds and the notion of atom-size deities in such contexts are, however, well known. My primary concern has been been, however, not so much whether we interpret nyungs dkar as as “mustard seed,” which I also considered a possibility, or “white turnip” (which I said I preferred for some other reasons) but rather the syntax plus the use of tsam, which seems to be ignored by Wangdu and Diemberger. Moreover, shig shig, in my view, is still not properly account for and is standing there in isolation with no adjective to qualify. I hope that our reading khro chung is also correct. I still suspect that something is amiss in this sentence.

One more point to add: In my view, the relationship between the words nyungs dkar (which does not seem to be attested elsewhere, cf. nyung ma & nyungs kar) and yungs (d)kar (the standard word for white mustard) is yet to be established. Are they really and simply interchangeable orthographic variants, as we seem to have taken for granted?

I may modify slightly my translation of the pertinent subordinate clause as follows:

“Upon seeing/appearing (snang ba dang) in the folds (gseb) of Vairocana’s beard, a glisteningly [white] ([dkar] shig shig) “tiny wrathful ones” (khro chung) having the size of a mustard seed (nyungs dkar tsam),” ….

I am not yet committing myself to one or the other interpretation of nyungs dkar.

Best,

Dorji

Comment on Did Vairocana have lice? by Cathy Cantwell

Cathy Cantwell — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:49:32 +0000

Dorji is probably not so familiar with the visualisations and rituals connected with mustard seeds which are ubiquitous in Tibetan Mahāyoga practice. There is no doubt that nyung dkar (or yungs dkar) here has its usual meaning of mustard seeds, and not turnip. The imagery is drawn on everywhere in the context of a precise visualisation of the smallest size, such as of a mantra seed syllable, described as, "tiny as a mustard seed" (yungs 'bru tsam, e.g. Dudjom Collected Works Vol. Da: 102, two instances, gNam lcags spu gri bsnyen yig). We have exactly the same principle in the Sa skya Phur pa example cited in the blog, with innumerable deities filling all the pores of the skin. The size does not limit the potency, quite the contrary: the small visualisation concentrates and focuses the power. This brings us to the second aspect of the imagery: the destructive ritual symbolism, which can be concentrated into miniature power substances (thun rdzas) and weapons. During my fieldwork in Rewalsar, one monk drew a modern analogy: this is the Tibetan atomic weapon [as in tiny thing has vast power]. It is always mustard seeds which are primarily used for the ritual power substances to be cast at the obstacles at the outset of every ritual practice session. They are generally referred to in ritual instructions simply as yungs thun (mustard seed power substances, e.g. Dudjom Collected Works Vol. Da: 501, gNam lcags spu gri yo byad shoms zin). A small bowl of them will be placed on the Vajra Master's table, ready for him to throw at the appropriate points in the ritual. The association of mustard with power substances is demonstrated also in expelling rites, where mustard weapons (yungs kar zor) featuring mustard flowers are an important part of the attack on the negative spirits. I enclose a diagram from my Ph.D work, an expelling ritual of the deity rDo rje Gro lod (Gro lod smad las, Dudjom Collected Works Vol. Ba: 311).

Comment on About by Rob Mayer

Rob Mayer — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:35:47 +0000

Thanks, Lala Rokh! It’s very kind of you to say so.

Comment on About by Lala Rokh

Lala Rokh — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:51:58 +0000

Janine Schultz pointed me toward your blog. Janine Schultz has extremely good taste.

Comment on Did Vairocana have lice? by DW von Bhutan

DW von Bhutan — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 07:53:12 +0000

Based on some the deliberations and comments made thus far, and based on own my reflection, I am tempted to suggest the following two (almost identical) alternative interpretations and translations:

“In the folds (gseb) of Vairocana’s beard, appeared (snang) a glisteningly [white] ([dkar] shig shig) “miniature wrathful one” (khro chung) having the size of a white turnip (nyungs dkar tsam).”

“In the folds (gseb) of Vairocana’s beard, appeared (snang) a glisteningly [white] ([dkar] shig shig) “tiny wrathful ones” (khro chung) having the size of a mustard seeds (nyungs (i.e. here = yungs) dkar tsam).”

I also take shig shig to be an adverb qualifying dkar (either ad sensum or perhaps dkar might have stood there, i.e. dkar shig shig, but dropped later. That is, the text might have read: nyungs dkar tsam dkar shig shig…. If the deities were so small like the mustard seeds, people would hardly see that they are wrathful ones and so there would not a cause for fear. I thus prefer “white turnip” possibility. “Lice,” one would assume, could have been at best a cause of some disgust but not of panic and even that sounds very unlikely.